Spousal privilege — it is a common law concept that a person can’t be forced to testify against their spouse, or that private communications between spouses are not admissible in court. It has NOTHING TO DO with an attorney representing one spouse having any legal obligations to the other.

Conflict of interest — an attorney cannot take a business position or bring legal proceedings against a client without that client’s waiver of the privilege.

In order for Hillary to prove Greg Craig has any duty toward her, she would first have to prove that he was her lawyer. But even then . . . he is opposing her politically, not opposing her in a transaction or litigation. Just because he may have been her lawyers (and, more likely, just her husband’s lawyer) doesn’t mean she gets carte blanche over Craig First Amendment protected right to support the political candidate of his choice. THAT, my friends, is why there will be no bar complaint against Craig.

Larry, comparing him to the Judas Richardson, wants to see everybody who had made eye contact with the Clintons to be enslaved to them for life.
Doesn’t work that way.

Please don’t jump on irresonsible speculations and insinuations. Please keep an open mind and read information outside this blog.
Thank you,
s

“Its like someone gave them all a cash infusion. I wouldn’t put it past Obama.”

Again, completely absurd. The only campaign that would ever consider wasting money like that would be the Clinton campaign.

Will,

Sometimes we can follow an argument right off the the short end of the pier.

I find generally there are two types of Hillary detractors; true Obama supporters and true Hillary haters.

But they both share one thing in common. They exhibit fixated thinking.

Yes! There are similar Clinton supporters. But in general, I find true Clintonistas (raising hand proudly) a more open minded and logical bunch.

I think there is too much stock placed in the concept of “loyalty” as far as endorsements are concerned in politics. They are pragmatic decisions on almost every occasion, made by career politicians who have spent their lives developing highly calibrated relationships with so-called “allies” who they will dump the minute it’s politicall expedient. The higher profile the politician, the more this truth bears out.

Will,

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

Your reply clarifies that we do start off from very different core beliefs. No wonder we arrive at different conclusions!

My personal belief is that without some measure of “loyalty” our society would collapse. Hillary could not be challenging Obama to this degree if she did not enjoy a very large number of established as well as neo-political junkies. It is hard to appreciate the positives of an opponent because it requires you to give them credit. I suggest that the more vulnerable our preferred candidate, the less willing we are to examine the truth and realities of our opponent. I certainly confess to suffering from this very human behavioral response.

We can look to Obama and also see that he enjoys some very loyal support. I think this loyalty was severely tested recently. Without loyalty, Obama would be dead in the water by now.

As a member of a military family, loyalty is pretty big in our lives. My immediate family agrees that a person who does not show loyalty in public cannot be trusted to be loyal in private.

But that’s my view. I understand what you are saying and it is where my thoughts turns to next.

Not all politicians are “loyal” and loyalty does not a good politician make. I agree!

My point really is that loyalty is a criteria for me when judging others. A lack of loyalty in my personal life is a deal breaker. A lack of loyalty from my attorney would be grounds for a law suit followed by a hearty “word of mouth” referral to all my friends to avoid such attorney.

I’m not sure why I would expect any less from Craig due to the fact his clients are political figures.

He is forbidden to disclose his client’s secrets. Any showing that Craig does so at any time would be grounds for ethical discipline.

If Craig cannot be trusted to keep his client’s secrets, the Clintons made a very poor choice of their legal counsel. Craig is a high priced lawyer, it would be career and financial suicide for him to disclose any client secrets and he is very much smart enough to know this.

For the record, I am a McCain man. Have never met and have no ties to Craig, his firm or either of the Democratic candidate’s campaigns.

answer is $, but who’s?

You make NO sense!

Attorney Craig is ethically challenged. He and his firm, Williams and Connally, have been the attorneys of record for Bill and Hillary Clinton for more than a decade.

B-Rob is yanking your chain. Apparently he failed to actually read Larry’s post above. Additionally, if he was a really good attorney, he would know that there is this thing called spousal privilege.

Did Hillary reasonably believe that he was her attorney? If so, he’s going to be talking to the discipinary committee if someone files a complaint.

he wasn’t a professor–he was
a guest lecturer or something

eight years in the Illinois state senate,

7 years in the State Senate and
he didn’t pass a bill until the
7th year when his mentor Jones
gave him all the other senators
bills to put his name on. He
subsequently put them on his
resume as his own and boy are
they pissed. The other senators
put in a lot of work on those
bills which Obama took as his own.

three years in the US Senate

a year and one-half actually
he has been running for president
the other year and one half

Obama is an empty vessel who has
done nothing yet. I expect him to
be called as a witness in the Rezko
trial or a warrant will be issued
for his arrest for taking bribes and
kick backs along with Rezko. Rezko
has been friends with Obama for 20
years and according to Obama, he is still a friend.